All that has changed is the price of a voter

Page Tools

John Howard must restrict any election losses to a net six seats to retain majority government and a renewed lease for Janette on Kirribilli House. His Coalition holds 82 seats. Seventy-six seats are enough (just) to deny Mark Latham. It would also ensure he would not have to negotiate with the three independents (NSW's Peter Andren and Tony Windsor and Queensland's mad hatter, Bob Katter), all of whom can surely be confident of remaining in Parliament, whoever wins government.

For their part, Labor holds 64 seats in a 150-seat House and must gain a net 12 seats to ensure regaining office with the barest majority. The Wollongong seat of Cunningham, which Labor under Simon Crean lost in a by-election last September, will surely be won back from the Greens. Which leaves Latham needing to take a minimum 11 seats from the Coalition to become prime minister. In the last election, in November 2001, Labor nationally dropped 550,000 first-preference votes. It must, this time, in an electorate of more than 13 million, increase its national vote by at least 700,000 (to 5 million) to be sure of ousting Howard (the Coalition's total popular vote last election was 4.93 million in an electorate of 12.7 million).

AdvertisementAdvertisement

The Coalition holds 20 of its 82 seats on majorities of 3.5 per cent or less, 11 of these on majorities of less than 1.7 per cent. NSW and Queensland each have six of the Government's 20 most marginal seats. Five of the NSW seats are among the Government's 11 most marginal. Thus both states are crucial to the election outcome. Labor cannot win without making inroads in each state. Yet four of the Government's five most marginal seats (all vulnerable to a swing of less than 1 per cent) are in Adelaide, Perth and Darwin (the fifth is Dobell, on the NSW Central Coast).

So much for the numbers. They won't change in the months ahead, no matter how hysterical the rhetoric. And don't be conned by "early" election babble. The Government is in trouble. Howard is not a risk-taker and never has been, and I don't see the election being held before the second half of October. The window of the first half of September would seem to have been closed by the unenthusiastic budget response.

In the meantime, for those who think Howard anything more than a ruthless opportunist shaped by 20 years of knockbacks and knockdowns, here is what one of his own had to say after Howard, as opposition leader, led the Coalition to defeat on July 11, 1987, our first winter election since the sweeping Curtin Labor victory in 1943. Steele Hall, a former Liberal premier of South Australia, issued a scathing nine-page statement three days after the 1987 defeat, saying, in part: "This election was fought on John Howard's policies presented by his choice of shadow ministers.

"His political theme song was conservatism. Our recipe was designed to save expenditure, substantially cut government services and offer tax cuts. It did not sell ... It was a development that turned an inevitable defeat for Labor into a certain defeat for us. Yet ever since John Howard's course became clear, my experience told me he would be shipwrecked. Now there is an inevitability we will have a new leader before the next election ... [He was right. The Peacock coup ousted Howard in 1989.]

"Liberals have generally believed they run a cleaner party than Labor. Yet the public would have to believe we were out to buy their votes. Our [proposed tax cuts] had the strongest smell of vote-buying ever generated in the history of the Liberal Party. The perceptions of our party's decision to value the voter in dollar terms should not be underestimated. Australians do care about quality of life issues. Our promise to 'tear up' Medicare disturbed the most dangerous of all political sleeping dogs. Our determination to push tax cuts created its own huge credibility problems ... "